[Peace-discuss] Re: ... Cost of Iraq War

[Robert Naiman]

No, Carl, I did not do that. I organized a demonstration protesting Bush's
veto for a timetable for withdrawal.

Argue your own position. Don't construct your own version of my position as
a foil for your own. It's not nice.

I accept that you like this polemical style. If you have a partner who also
likes it, and others enjoy it as spectators, no-one can have any grounds for
objecting. But I don't like it. One ought to be able to opt out of it.


On 8/15/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Bob, didn't you organize a demonstration protesting Bush's veto of the
> Democrats' bill funding the war?
>
> My memory is that at that demonstration you and I discussed supporting
> that bill.  I said that we should urge our representatives not to vote
> for any further funding for the war, and you said that you'd like to do
> that -- but couldn't for reasons of effectiveness: that it was more
> effective to attach timelines, etc. to funding bills.
>
> I don't think it's one argument.  There are many reasons for opposing
> the Iraq war, some good, some bad.  The latter would include the Richard
> Clarke/Barack Obama arguments that the troops should be used for killing
> different Muslims.
>
> I nevertheless agree that it can be worthwhile to work with groups and
> individuals whose views on the war you don't entirely agree with.  But
> at least some of those differences should not be ignored, just for the
> sake of a united front. Given the vast forest of lies that is the
> American political landscape, we should try to tell the truth about our
> politics.  I hope trying to do that is the source of my "inevitable
> attacks."
>
> The author of amleft.blog.com this week discusses "Michael O'Hanlon and
> Kenneth Pollock, those purported Brookings Institution critics of the
> war who discovered that, gosh golly, the surge is really working, and
> the war is turning in our favor." He notes that, "contrary to the public
> reaction, the purpose here is not to legitimize Bush policy, but rather,
> to justify the hawkish Iraq views of nearly all of the Democratic
> presidential candidates, with the exception of Kucinich and Richardson
> [and Gravel]. In other words, as bad as Bush has been, the US is on the
> verge of victory if we just follow the wiser counsel of a Democratic
> president like Hillary or Obama. Hence, the creation of a phony antiwar
> advocacy group by MoveON.org and the Service Employees International
> Union, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, to forestall calls for
> immediate withdrawal."
>
> I think the well-funded MoveON/AAEI campaign ($6.9 million from DNC
> contributors for "Iraqi Summer" alone I understand) is much more an
> attempt to make the war go away as an issue for the Democratic party
> than it is to end the war (much less to effect a complete withdrawal).
> But that doesn't mean that real antiwar groups shouldn't have anything
> to do with them. (AWARE got some good signs from AAEI for free.)
>
> I also agree that "Making a small contribution to ending the war is the
> most we can usually expect of any particular action that we might take."
>   Whether a given action does that is of course a prudential decision,
> but I'm not sure the "moral choice" is as "simple" as you suggest. "Will
> attending this event likely contribute, in some small way, towards
> ending the war" in the sense that Clinton and Obama are now talking of
> "ending the war" -- i.e., continuing the US policy of occupation and
> control of the Middle East?
>
> If so, I don't think we should contribute.  But it may be even more
> important to talk openly about what the anti-war movement should be
> doing and why.  --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> >
> > Nothing in the event tomorrow will argue for, or in any way support,
> > funding the war. I have never done so, and will never do so in the
> future.
> >
> > I harbor no belief that invoking the cost is the "best" argument, either
> > in a moral or a practical sense. Nor, in fact, do I harbor a belief that
> > there is any "best" argument. It is one argument. Different arguments
> > for ending the war many move different people, either to opposition, or
> > to intensify opposition, or to take more action on opposition. Different
> > arguments may, at different times, capture the attention of news media,
> > which is an important objective, although obviously not the only one.
> >
> > I don't feel I have to support or defend every word, image, metaphor, or
> > argument that comes out of MoveOn, or any other organization, in order
> > to make the decision to help organize an event sponsored by MoveOn or
> > any other organization. For me, it's a simple moral calculation. MoveOn
> > sets up these events across the country. One can help them happen or
> > not. More events are good. More people find out about opposition to the
> > war as a result of these events, and may be moved to take more actions.
> > Press may come tomorrow. They may not. New people may feel addressed -
> > we're holding the event at King School, a place where no such event has
> > been held in the past, to my knowledge. One has to try, it seems to me,
> > without guarantees of spectacular success - that seems obvious.
> >
> > Similarly, it seems to me, most folks receiving my appeal to attend the
> > event tomorrow - if they are not otherwise obligated by a job or
> > something - face a simple moral choice. Will attending this event likely
> > contribute, in some small way, towards ending the war? Making a small
> > contribution to ending the war is the most we can usually expect of any
> > particular action that we might take.
> >
> > In general, I've thought it was not in the best interest of humanity to
> > respond to Carl's attacks - it takes time and energy, time and energy
> > which I think I could more productively spend elsewhere - and I intend
> > to generally ignore Carl's apparently inevitable attacks in the future.
> > But I decided to make an exception to my rule in this case. I may very
> > well regret it - live and learn.
> >
> > On 8/15/07, *C. G. Estabrook* <galliher at uiuc.edu
> > <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >     It's certainly worthwhile to organize opposition to the war, but is
> this
> >     the best argument to use?  Are people really going to change their
> minds
> >     about the war because it's costing too much?
> >
> >     More importantly, if the war is just, then the US (which can afford
> it)
> >     should be paying the price to wage it.  But if it's not, then we
> >     shouldn't be paying for at all.
> >
> >     I don't think the problem is that the US is caught in an "unwinnable
> >     civil war."  It's that we committed a great crime by launching the
> war
> >     (the same crime for which the German leaders were hanged after WWII)
> and
> >     that we continue the crime by continuing the war.
> >
> >     The solution is not to urge our representatives to vote for a bill
> that
> >     continues funding the war while "forc[ing the president] to accept
> real
> >     timelines to bring our troops home quickly," even if such a thing is
> >     possible.  It's to demand that our represetnatives not vote for any
> >     funding for this war or for the larger policy of which it is a
> >     part.  --CGE
> >
> >     Robert Naiman wrote:
> >      > Just Foreign Policy is co-sponsoring this event together with the
> >      > National Priorities Project.
> >      > Please come and spread the word.
> >      > ----
> >      > Dear MoveOn Member,
> >      >
> >      > Did you know that we've already spent more than $456 BILLION on
> >     the war
> >      > so far?1 And that it's cost each American household more than
> >     $4,100?2
> >      > We've learned that when we remind voters of the costs of the Iraq
> >      > war--and all the important priorities that we can't afford
> because of
> >      > it--they're more likely to push Congress to end the war quickly.
> >      >
> >      > So MoveOn members are holding a news conference on Thursday in
> >     Urbana to
> >      > release a new report on what the war has cost your area. They
> >     still need
> >      > a few more folks to come. Can you make it?
> >      >
> >      > Host: Bob N.--fellow MoveOn member
> >      > Where: King School, Fairview at Goodwin, Urbana
> >      > When: Thursday, Aug 16 2007, 12:00 PM
> >      >
> >      > Sign up here:
> >      > http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971
> >      > < http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971>
> >      >
> >      > At a news conference like this, it really helps to have a crowd
> >     of 5-10
> >      > people--so it's clear in the TV coverage that folks are really
> >     concerned
> >      > about the cost of the war. We still need a few more folks to come
> >     to the
> >      > event in Urbana (because it's during the day, it's a little
> >     harder for
> >      > some people to make it). If you're free, the MoveOn members
> >     organizing
> >      > this event could really use your help.
> >      >
> >      > At the events, MoveOn members will hold a press conference for
> >     reporters
> >      > where we'll release the report, hear from speakers and take
> questions
> >      > from the media. Then, we'll deliver the report outlining what the
> >     war is
> >      > costing us to our representative's office so that Congress gets
> the
> >      > message: We want an end to this unwinnable civil war in Iraq and
> >     we want
> >      > it now.
> >      >
> >      > In September, General Petraeus is going to issue his report on
> Iraq.
> >      > Congress will then decide whether they're going to give the
> president
> >      > another blank check for endless war or whether they'll force him
> to
> >      > accept real timelines to bring our troops home quickly.
> >      >
> >      > So we're going all out this month to make sure Congress takes a
> stand
> >      > against this war and votes to bring our troops home in September.
> >      >
> >      >     * First, we'll release these reports to remind Congress and
> the
> >      > media how outraged we are that we're dumping billions of dollars
> >     into a
> >      > religious civil war that just can't be won.
> >      >     * Then, throughout the month, we'll work with our coalition
> >     partners
> >      > at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq to turn up the heat on
> >     pro-war
> >      > members of Congress in their home districts.
> >      >     * We'll finish the month off strong right before Congress
> >     heads back
> >      > to D.C. On August 28th--National Take a Stand Day--we'll hold
> vigils
> >      > across the country.
> >      >
> >      > These events are just the first step--and we want to start out
> >     with a
> >      > bang. Can you make it on Thursday?
> >      >
> >      > Sign up here:
> >      > http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971
> >      > < http://political.moveon.org/event/reportrelease/39971>
> >      >
> >      > Thanks for all you do.
> >      >
> >      > --Nita, Matt, Anna, Natalie and the MoveOn.org Political Action
> Team
> >      >   Tuesday, August 14th, 2007
> >      >  ...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070816/88af9d95/attachment.htm